I just visited for the first time and even took a tour (since I was with family from out of town, granted technically I am too though I was born in and used to live in Southern California). Two words: tourist trap. No wonder I never had any interest in going. That ranks right up there with Johnson Space Center, which despite living less than 10 miles from and travelling down NASA Road 1 all the time, I've still visited just once in 20 years of living in the Clear Lake Area.
So he can follow our superstar tradition and get injured before his prime ends? Besides Hollywood is only one area of SoCal. I've lived and had extended stays in places like Carson, Pomona, Pasadena and Rialto. No sign of him there either.
What were you expecting? It's not like you're taking a tour of ancient ruins. If you wanted an interesting tour of LA, why didn't you look for a walking tour of downtown, Beverly Hills, or Venice?
(Again, what IS "worth it"? Apparently little of what you come across "measures up" enough.) I think its OFFICIAL - INTERNET and technology has UN-ROMANTICIZED EVERYTHING Anyway As a Southern Cal resident, would agree that Hollywood is a tourist trap. I used to live semi-close to Disney Land and Knotts Berry Farm, driving past those areas occasionally. Not nearly as bad but similar "so much tourists and shops" making it feel like you're just a commodity passing through and not a resident lol. And yes having a "disenchanted" outlook... Movies are still doing well at box-office but California and Hollywood isnt as glitzy as it used to be. They've ruined itself under its own stereotypes. And the physical Hollywood area itself, its just pretty seedy now, its more Lindsay Lohan's cocaine pickup spot than Marilyn Monroe red carpet.
I was just with family who in no way grew up in SoCal like me and they wanted to see Hollywood (btw, for the record, we did tour Beverly Hills). I used to live in LA County, so I've seen it all except Hollywood (until now) and Malibu. Well, I haven't been to Westwood/UCLA either but other than that I've all of the touristy stuff there that I have any interest in seeing. And Beverly Hills was boring to me, just a large sub-division minus Rodeo Dr. from what I saw. The good thing is though that I finally got to see it and Hollywood after all these years.
That reminds me that I haven't been to Knots in a long time. And Magic Mountain while I'm at it. Anyways, the real action is where shows are being filmed and produced, such as Burbank (e.g. The Tonight Show for many years), Studio City, Universal City and Culver City, although a few are filmed in and around physical Hollywood. It was clear to me that Hollywood is literally there just for the out-of-towners who think that is where the famous people action is. It's as much of a tourist trap as Times Square, granted I've never been to New York as anything but a tourist. As for how it felt, I didn't feel it was seedy though I guess I didn't see it all and didn't stay long.
I'd tend to agree. It's really not that big a deal. I'd say that about LA in general outside the Beach areas which are very scenic. LA doesn't have a very large downtown skyline either. It's a sprawling community with some pretty rough neighborhoods.
I still like LA/SoCal very much but just see Hollywood as an obvious tourist trap. Don't make it the centerpiece of any trip out there, as there's plenty to see and do otherwise.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QolhBMXS1X4?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
If we are talking about living in a big city in So Cal. I'd take San Diego over LA. If we are talking about all of California. I'd choose San Francisco.
I'm with you there. And maybe I'm mixing up just the city and "scene" itself compared to the actual ATTRACTIONS. And I maybe lump in WEST Hollywood with it too, egads.. When mentioning the seedy part, its more area right outside the attractions areas. Thats for the people who think it matters that there's neighboring "ghetto" areas connected. Like how people say USC and U of H are in rough areas. Thats not much deterrent to me, just for people who think its ritzy for miles maybe confusing Beverly Hills with it (hell I'm 45 minutes away and still get landscapes crossed up)
SF Fisherman Wharf, another little tourist trap I've only been there and SF once, but I liked it though. Really I don't mind taking the newbie over-priced lazy way out of touring. I commented how its different of course when you're living close to an area and you get too settled in, then places start to seem more mundane, then later seems more "riff raff" than an attraction. Though its not really the destination's fault.
- Walk of Fame - TV Show tapings - Universal studios - Griffith observatory - Wax museum Dead wrong OP
OP is dead on. Hollywood/Highland- the Ripley's museum of oddities, the wax musuem, the chinese theater with the handprints, the costumed characters, the walk of fame, and all the tours out of that one street corner are just terrible. universal studios isn't really in Hollywood, it's in Universal City. I'll give you the Griffith Observatory. great view, free science. I'll take a stroll down Melrose, Venice Beach, LA Live downtown, and/or Culver City any day of the week over that other tourist trap stuff... this. I work in the heart of Hollywood (totally non entertainment industry related) and used to live in the neighborhood. it really isn't glitz or glamour as most might think. in fact, it is gritty, grimy, and full of shady characters
Right on. I think most people who live in LA laugh at Hollywood being a tourist attraction because of how trashy and undeserving it is. There are a couple of places that would be a brief stop in a long list of higher priorities if I was a tourist. There are some good restaurants, comedy clubs, etc. but those are one stop things, and then get the hell out.
